Search

9 Aug 2005: cast News Benchmark Test Evaluation, the general procedures used are described and previous. ... Test Evaluation, four sites (BBN, MITRE, SPRACH and SRI) participated and submitted their.

9 Aug 2005: 62. 6.6 Conclusions. 63. 7 Conclusions 69. 7.1 Acknowledgements. 70. A Significance tests 71. ... A.1 McNemars Test. 71. A.2 Critical ratio for the difference in two s.

8 Aug 2005: 4. Includ ing EdgeOrientation Impr ovesClassificationPerformance.Thisexampleshowsthe classificationresultson a test setusing a marginalized template.

12 Jul 2005: Foreach individual in the database we collected a training and a test video sequenceof the person’s face in random motion, sampled at 10fps. ... Illumination conditions were mildly different in training and test sequences,see Figures 8 and 9.

9 Aug 2005: A techniquethat optimises the length of individual n-grams is proposed, and experimental tests show it to lead toimproved results.

9 Aug 2005: The global error covariance matrix foreach network mapping is estimated fromits performance on an unseen test set, andthe Jacobian matrix is found by extendingthe usual error back-propagation formulaeto evaluate the

10 Jul 2005: Training of allalgorithms was performed with data acquired in a single illumination setting and testingwith a single other – we used 9 randomly selected training/test combinations. ... time 7.8 11.8 11.8 0.8 45 7.0 7.0. Table 2:Evaluation results:The

9 Aug 2005: The word error rate resultsare based on the six shows of the 1996 Hub 4 development test,and were generated by rescoring lattices produced by a simplifiedversion of the 1996 Hub

9 Aug 2005: The calculation of perplexity is based on the probability thatthe language model assigns to some test text. ... Thus perplexity is based solely on the probabilities ofthe words which actually occur in the test text.

26 Sep 2005: to test it. This was recognised early on, thus most noise robustness methods can be classified under several. ... Test Conditions. Figure 3.1: Methods of reducing the acoustic mismatch. 3.1 Inherently Robust Front-Ends.